Opinion
22-1128-JAR-ADM
10-07-2022
MICHAEL YESHIAMBEL, Plaintiff, v. MERRICK GARLAND, in his official capacity as United States Attorney General, et al., Defendant.
ORDER
Angel D. Mitchell, U.S. Magistrate Judge.
This case comes before the court on the parties' Joint Motion to Stay Discovery. (ECF 12.) The motion asks the court to stay the proceedings, including initial disclosures and the setting of deadlines, pending a ruling on the fully briefed motion to dismiss filed in the case (ECF 7).
Although the court will not stay discovery simply because a dispositive motion has been filed, a stay may be appropriate if “(1) the case is likely to be finally concluded via the dispositive motion; (2) the facts sought through discovery would not affect the resolution of the dispositive motion; (3) discovery on all issues posed by the complaint would be wasteful and burdensome; or (4) the dispositive motion raises issues as to a defendant's immunity from suit.” Arnold v. City of Olathe, No. 18-2703-CM-JPO, 2019 WL 2438677, at *2 (D. Kan. Mar. 8, 2019). The decision whether to stay discovery rests in the sound discretion of the court. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).
Here, the court agrees with the parties that a short stay is appropriate. First, discovery is not necessary to resolve the pending motion, which, as mentioned, is fully briefed. Second, if the court grants the motion, the case will be dismissed in its entirety. Thus, moving forward with discovery at this time could prove wasteful and burdensome for both the court and the parties. Finally, because this case involves review of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services's (“USCIS”) denial of plaintiff's Application for Naturalization, defendants have filed a 1300-page administrative record. The parties state that a stay will not significantly delay the proceedings because they will be “able to work from” this record during the pendency of the stay. (ECF 12, at 4.)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties' joint request to stay proceedings is granted. All pretrial proceedings in this case, including scheduling discovery and setting deadlines, are stayed until further order of the court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if the court denies defendants' motion to dismiss, the parties must meet and confer and submit a proposed scheduling order via email to the undersigned's chambers within 14 days of the court's ruling. A form scheduling order is available on the court's website. The court then will set a scheduling conference if necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.